The Northwest Passage was navigated by small unpowered vessels twice during the 1850s, but this year is looking like that will be impossible.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
- Angry Democrats
- November 9, 1913 Storm
- Science Magazine Explains Trump Supporters
- Obliterating Bill Gates
- Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out
- The End Of Everything
- Harris To Win In A Blowout
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
Recent Comments
- Greg in NZ on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- arn on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- Trevor on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- czechlist on Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- arn on COP29 Preview
- arn on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on COP29 Preview
- conrad ziefle on Making Themselves Irrelevant
- stewartpid on COP29 Preview
- GeologyJim on A Giant Eyesore
Your newspaper clippings are always amusing. So McClure ‘made’ passage by sledging part of it, and Collinson actually turned back, and both spent years wintering over in ice-bound ships, and that is what you want to compare with current conditions??
“Current conditions” are that even with satellites, GPS, Internet, sophisticated weather forecasts, advanced construction and clothing materials, portable heat, wireless communications, lights, sonar and radar – passage through the thick multi-year ice blocking the eastern Beaufort Sea will probably be impossible,
How about you stick to explaining your reading comprehension skills. You write “was navigated by small unpowered vessels” when the article itself says McClure lost his vessel, and is factually wrong on Collinson, as a quick check with Wikipedia would have told you.
I would trust the clipping over Wikipedia.
How do I know that you or your friends have not edited the entry for the Collinson information? Can you prove what Wikipedia says for this event is true?
Obviously Connelly knows better than the people who lived at the time.
Just to clarify your position, the Wikpedia article on the Northwest Passage is factually wrong about the McClure and Collinson expeditions because you think William Connelly wrote them. Meanwhile, an anonymous newspaperman from Australia in 1925 is correct. Have I got that right?
Just to be clear, the Eastern side of the Beaufort Sea is clogged with multi-year ice, and those canoeists aren’t going to get through this year.
Steve, that is a charming observation, but it doesn’t address the problems with reading comprehension and fact checking. Even your own article says McClure completed the journey on foot.
Guess what, “William M. Connelly” never edited that article on Wikipedia. Will you trust it now? Or are you sticking with your correspondent from Hobart, 1925?
And the canoeists this year have made it quite clear that they intend to portage.
So what is your point?
Steve, my point is made in my first comment. These old articles are amusing, but don’t prove anything one way or another. The really amusing part of your publishing them is how poorly you actually read them yourself. You’ve got some software that finds words and highlights them, but you don’t actually read them. If you did read them, you wouldn’t write things like you did in this post – that the Northwest Passage was twice navigated by small unpowered boats in the 1850s when it wasn’t.
1850s – ships locked in ice, abandoned, people die
2013 – tourists buy tickets on cruise ships
There is a trend here, Steve. Canoeists not being able to traverse the NWP does not refute the global warming narrative, or even amount to good snark.
“Your newspaper clippings are always amusing.”
A thinking man would find them illuminating. Sorry you are only ‘amused’.
David,
Satellites monitoring took place after 1979 so I can’t show you anything as per Arctic conditions. What we do have are reports. Make of them what you will but what is clear is that the Arctic was not steady at the 1979 maximum extent over the last 200 years.
References:
1922 report [pdf]
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
Historic Arctic ice variations
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice-tony-b/
David, the clippings shown here definitively prove current alarmism is a load of bullshit. This particular clipping is addressed with a question mark. If any small craft made a Northwest passage way back then, however, it would also be massively significant with respect to global warming BS.
We’ve been told how long CO2 has been increasing, and how much warming there has been, and how much the polar ice has melted. In order for the global warming storyline to be historically true the Northwest passage would now have to be easily navigable by small craft throughout the entire late spring through summer season, if it were navigable at all 160 years ago. Why is that simple concept so hard for you to grasp??
I haven’t seen a record of any ship sailing the Northwest Passage in a single season before 1957. If you have one please document it. Of course, now its done by cruise ships. So, no, it wasn’t ‘navigable at all’ 160 years ago, as a trip to Wikipedia will tell you. This amusing clipping is wrong.
How do you know it “it wasn’t ‘navigable at all’ 160 years ago”? Do you mean it was not navigated at all 160 years ago?
there weren’t and direct London/New York flights either………
That is someone else’s grammar problem, I’m just quoting.
Your uninformed IGNORANCE is a JOKE, David, vun Kannon. Your silly comments are not even amusing, let alone informed and factual.
Why don’t you take a trip to Wikipedia, open your very closed “mind” and see what it says about the Canadian ship, the St. Roch. I am sure you will have massive difficulty doing that so I will quote some of it.
St Roch was constructed in 1928 at the Burrard Dry Dock Shipyards in North Vancouver. Between 1929–1939 she supplied and patrolled Canada’s Arctic.
In 1940–1942 she became first vessel to complete a voyage through the Northwest Passage in a west to east direction, and in 1944 became first vessel to make a return trip through the Northwest Passage, through the more northerly route considered the true Northwest Passage, and was also the first to navigate the passage in a single season. Between 1944–1948 she again patrolled Arctic waters. In 1950 she became first vessel to circumnavigate North America, from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Vancouver via the Panama Canal. Finally in 1954 she returned to Vancouver for preservation. In 1962, St. Roch was designated a National Historic Site of Canada.[5]
Thanks, the reference to the St Roch was the papragraph just above the one I referred to! So we’ve pushed back the first single season traverse to 1944. Where does that leave the fact checking skills of a newspaper writer in 1925 Hobart, Australia or a blogger in 2013?
Bottom line – the plural of anecdote isn’t data. There are scientists trying to push back our baseline of Arctic sea ice extent, digitizing maps, logs, etc. Not newspapers from Australia (pace anyone reading this from Hobart. A nice place I’m sure.). Look at what Walt Meier of NSIDC has done with NIMBUS 1 data from the early 1960s. That is important work.
… done by cruise ships …
Not many – even if they are ice capable (ie not reliant on ice breaker support).
http://thecruisepeople.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/three-ships-to-tackle-canadas-northwest-passage-in-2013/
NWP cruise ship 1940…
http://www.hnsa.org/ships/stroch.htm
NWP cruise ship……now it’s done by criuse ships
http://www.usatoday.com/story/cruiselog/2013/05/24/lindblad-expeditions-national-geographic-explorer-itineraries/2357927/
An interesting comparison is that the St Roch had a draft of 12 and a half feet, and these cruise ships aresn’t much deeper at 16+ feet.
The failure of a through search of ships logs is lamentable, and the fact sea captains of their day were very busy a probably did not record such this is indeed a travesty. That does not rule out that it may have happened.
The bigger travesty is that climate scientists can not get away from all of these weather variations being utterly natural, and nothing to do with humans at all.
I don’t think a sea captain could have traversed the NWP and not noticed the fact. Completing the NWP was sort of like the X Prize of the 1850s. McClure lost his ship and completed part of the journey on foot, and was still knighted and given a share of the 10,000 pound reward.
Digitizing old ship logs is an important way to fill in our knowledge of past climate.
IMO you are wrong.
Ship’s captain had much more to think about including the very act of surviving. Also was the fact that they did not always know where they were as magnetic compasses of the day were not the most reliable.
Just because it is not recorded does not mean it didn’t happen. When a tree falls in a forest etc, etc…
If you are too stupid to realize the difference between a massive steel (and concrete?) cruise ship (with GPS, radar, long range radio, hulls designed for ice, etc. already mentioned by others) versus small ships of the 1850s, and even a “tiny” “sailing sloop”, you are way beyond help. And if you think Wikipedia is a definitive, unerring, all inclusive source of facts you are borderline retarded at best.
Reblogged this on Reality Check and commented:
Damn that Global Warming ANYWAY! lol
Disinformation: We’re being lied to: http://www.wnd.com/disinformation/
We better stop writing books. Nobody reads them.
David vun Kannon says:
June 25, 2013 at 7:33 pm
I haven’t seen a record of any ship sailing the Northwest Passage in a single season before 1957. If you have one please document it. Of course, now its done by cruise ships.
====
I haven’t seen any record of slow moving sailing vessels, without GPS and radar…
Nor the ability to withstand the ice. David will not be remembered by anyone as a very deep thinker.
Bian,
You may find this article interesting.
Climate Change Adventure: The Arctic’s Melting, So These Guys Sailed Across It
REBECCA J. ROSENSEP 25 2012, 7:05 AM ET: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/climate-change-adventure-the-arctics-melting-so-these-guys-sailed-across-it/261930/
“Three men made the complete Northwest crossing through the M’Clure strait (the northernmost of the direct routes) in the Belzebub II — A SAIL BOAT WITH NO FORTIFICATION. Previously, the only boats that had made it through M’Clure were ice-breakers, and none had been able to complete the pass through Viscount Melville Sound after shooting through M’Clure.
And even your linked story notes Amundsen’s 1906 crossing, making David look like more of a dumbass for his 1957 comments. And how do we know that Amundsen could not have taken the exact same route with GPS and other modern navigation tools, satellite data, etc.??? We don’t, but we do know he did cross without any modern tools over one hundred years again in a tiny ship, so we can conclude that there is very likely nothing special about conditions in the arctic today.
And if we have a brain we can certainly conclude that the global warming storyline about how there has been so much warming for so long is a load of BULLSHIT!!!
Chris,
Yes and it took him 3 years to do it.
“In a three year journey between 1903 and 1906, Amundsen explored the passage with a crew of no more than six. . . . Amundsen set out from Oslo in June 1903 and was west of the Boothia Peninsula by late September. The Gjøa was put into a natural harbour on the south shore of King William Island; by October 3 she was iced in. There the expedition remained for nearly two years”
I would say there was a considerable difference between the 2 sailing trips.
@T.O.O. – if you hop over to the Roald Amundsen page in Wikipedia, there is a little more detail on the sailing. He got about halfway through in the first summer, stayed for more than a year in harbor, learning Inuit survival skills, and then finished the journey through the islands in the third summer. And then skiied 800 km each way to send a telegram! Finally reached port in Alaska more than 3 years after leaving Norway.
David, look at his boat……that’s why he only made it 1/2 way….but even that far was a lot for that slow boat
@Chris BC –
Well, no. The whole point of this exchange is that the plural of anecdote is not data. That is what makes all of Steve’s newspaper clippings only amusing, and not informative. If I want to find out about Arctic conditions in 1853, do I read an Australian newspaper from 1925? McClure’s book in available online, why read a newspaper when you can read the primary source document?
http://books.google.com/books?id=BAdbAAAAQAAJ
I guess Mr vun Kannon will have to temporarily find some other “magazine” to toss a few pearls of wisdom from Wikipedia to make himself look stupid
Thanks for keeping things classy, Brian.
Thanks for the Wikipedia references. They are now the first step to any college student getting an F on a paper they submit.
It seems that the main Wikipedia reference for the McClure expedition is McClure’s own book, published in 1865. But please, correct the record as you see fit. If The Mercury of Hobart Australia says that McClure went by sledge, and McClure says he went by sledge, but Steve Goddard says he sailed it, I’m sure the Wikipedia article should take note of the different opinions.
Are you looking to be spam? Next time you lie – you are gone.
Steve,
What did David lie about? Isn’t this your own statement (from above)?: “The Northwest Passage was navigated by small unpowered vessels twice during the 1850s. . . .
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003EO400003/abstract
may be of use.
From above linked paper –
According to NASA at least, the eastern end of the Northwest Passage is wide open for hundreds of miles, and “the eastern Beaufort Sea” is currently falling apart at the seams:
http://earthdata.nasa.gov/labs/worldview/?map=-3050656,-1860928,422752,258752&products=baselayers,MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor~overlays,arctic_coastlines_3413,arctic_graticule_3413&time=2013-06-23&switch=arctic
I met Kevin Vallely in Oslo recently, and he seemed remarkably sensible in all the circumstances. He assured me he wasn’t “crazy enough to try and walk to the North Pole” this year!
Waiting waiting….. The world will end ……in about 5 billion years!!!
Maybe you might consider enjoying today instead of being chicken little.
Andy, I’d like to enjoy today, and I’d like my grandchildren to enjoy their day as well. Is that too much to ask?
Arctic ice extent is at a 10 year high today, and the Arctic is having the coldest summer on record.
What exactly is it that you are worried about?
Steve– I find this odd. The National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) data don’t show quite the same picture you’re showing. Click on “Arctic Sea Ice Extent” here:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
So who’s pulling our leg here? Are we or are we not two standard deviations below the 1979-2000 average?
“Are we or are we not two standard deviations below the 1979-2000 average?”
Cherry pick much? 😆
Jim, those are clouds
Not sure how that helps. If what Jim thinks is broken ice is really clouds, then you think that when the clouds move away more solid ice will be revealed?
David,
I just read that Barrow Alaska is almost completely ice free — 3 weeks ahead of its normal time. The webcam pictures from there were used by Steve Goddard a dozen times these past few months as proof of Arctic ice recovery. What do you think the odds are that he will post another picture from there?
TOO:
He did yesterday or the day before.
OMG!!! You mean ice MELTS! Eeeeek! Rock solid proof the end is near! 😆
Laz, you’re mincing words….
“I just read that it’s almost completely”….is not the same as “ice free”….3 weeks ahead of ice free
Congratulations – you won a special post devoted to you.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/the-skill-level-of-the-alarmist-community/
miked,
That great, but the ice is gone now and I would be very surprised if Steve acknowledges that fact with another webcam picture.
I’ve never seen a crowd in my entire life more resistant to considering– or even reading– anyone else’s opinion. They hold the Truth in their hands, and nothing need ever be done to bother verifying it. I guess this must be the Scientific Method at work.
For anyone who wants to see what’s new in northeast Siberia, compared to how things were back in Nordenskjold’s day, check out this article:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vast-methane-plumes-seen-in-arctic-ocean-as-sea-ice-retreats-6276278.html
Of course you may decide it’s not in your best interest to read anything new. After all, you do know that nothing contradicting your favorite opinions is true.
Global Warming causing Snow in Siberia. In June!
http://news.sky.com/story/1103914/siberia-scorching-sun-to-snow-storm-in-a-day
Andy Oz,
Just another example of “global weirding” brought on by a very unusual jet stream.
That’s a scientific term? “Global weirding”?
You guys are funny. Just like Julia Gillard was. You know she was sacked today because of her stupid carbon tax. And no one will miss her. She’s history just like the great Global Warming Swindle.
TOO:
Just a normal JETSTREAM in a cooling world!
Are you practicing Witch craft along with Katherine!
weird (wîrd)
adj. weird·er, weird·est
1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of the preternatural or supernatural.
2. Of a strikingly odd or unusual character; strange.
3. Archaic Of or relating to fate or the Fates.
How can normal weather conditions be considered “Supernatural?
Miked,
Weirding as in definition #2
Michael,
I couldn’t agree more. It takes a steady and purposeful manner if you want to get your points across. I am reminded of that line from The Bourne movie 2 where the corrupt CIA agent says ” I don’t think your galoshes are high enough to be walking in this shit”. BTW, Have you encountered the “psycho stalker” yet — goes by the name of gator69? Walk to the other side of the street if he comes your way.
I’ve been having that experience, T (may I call you T?). At first I thought he was just pretending to be obtuse. But now I’ve modified that opinion.
Still waiting on either of you geniuses to produce any proof whatsoever that man made CO2 is changing global climate.
How many decades do you alarmists nutters need anyway? 😆
Michael,
I just got a nickname — cool.
Yep, it’s dipshit.
T.O.O. has another nickname, a VERY appropriate one – TOO POOH. It describes the carp he dumps here – pure, unadulterated POOH.
That’s rich coming from the ‘word counter’! 😆
Yes, I Identified you as a nut yesterday, related the story about other CAGW nutters who stalked me, and even asked if it was your crazy brother Harold who said that Jesus wanted to strangle me.
No points for originality or composition dipshit.
Why is it you parrots cannot come up with anything new? 😆
michael, what you fail to realize is that most of us have read all this crap before. You are only offering up the same old discredited CAGW scenario. Zzzzzzzzz….
The question you should be asking is why the alarmists skipped step #1 of their inquiry, they never ruled out natural variability. That’s like hiring Ghost Busters, before you make sure that noise in the kitchen at night isn’t just the ice maker.
Why did they skip step #1 michael?
You could also ask why every adjustment the alarmists make to the temperature record makes the present look warmer, and the past look cooler. Their adjustments are also larger than the claimed warming.
If you do not honestly ask these questions you are a moron, or a moron and a zealot.
IT WAS ONLY THE ICEMAKER? OH NO! 🙂
Gate, I’ve gone over this several times now with you. I’ll do so once more.
One does not “rule out” natural factors in the climate balance. They are all still in effect. What one attempts is to assign relative strengths to each factor… and then perform a simple vector (or component) analysis. Once the various actors are put in relation to one another, it’s time to look at secondary orders of analysis– how the forces interact with one another.
So the sun still shines– and TSI is still a major player in this game. I would not at all be surprised to find that the main reason Arctic patterns have remained level for this past handful of years is from our last Solar Minimum having been low for an extended period, and the current Solar Maximum having pretty much failed entirely.
All these forces act in concert. The net result is this year’s weather. If you want to look at a climate trend, however, the baseline has to go back further than just 1979. Because that was a major hinge point where change began to become obvious.
Enough hand waving. Where are the figures?
I can prove you are full of shit, so you better cough something up really quick, just as T.O.O.L.
Put up or STFU. 😆
Sorry, just ‘ask’ T.O.O.L. The alarmist do not know shit about NV. Period.
Sorry Michael:
You do not go back far enough. The globe has been cooling for over 5,000 years and the only thing we have is to have experienced one of the short warming periods that have happened during that time. Biological activity shows the globe has not recovered to the extent of warmth that was experienced even 800 years ago.
Michael,
It will be interesting to see what the IPCC comes up with this September. I know that they have put a lot of effort in trying to quantify the effects the outliers in climate forcings like magnetism and cosmic rays. However, these outliers must be considered very minor because the scuttlebutt is that they are probably going raise their confidence level to the 95% level in regards to the CO2 forcing on climate. 95%, in scientific lingo, means virtual certainty which requires very persuasive evidence especially with so many hundreds involved in the vetting procedures.
I didn’t realize that Greenpeace was interested in science.
Then we can say with 97% certainty that alarmists are idiots. 😆
Steve,
What does Greenpeace have to do with the significance of the 95% confidence level?
The IPCC is largely staffed by Greenpeace activists
Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035! ROFLMAO
Here is a book T.O.O.L has obviously not read.
http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q
Why not? Incurious? 😆
Steve,
Greenpeace has infiltrated Swedish Astronomy and Chinese Hydrology or the scores of other national sciences? I find that highly improbable. And I suppose asking you to prove such a ridiculous remark would be a waste of time — am I right?
As well, Greenpeace had nothing yo do with the 2035 remark by Indian glaciologist, Syed Hasnain which was found and disclosed by the IPCC themselves within the 3000 pages of documents. How it got into the report remains a mystery as Hasnain said had never submitted the suggestion.
You seem to have a fanciful preoccupation with Greenpeace.
Michael:
There is nothing “New” in that. The Arctic has had more ice free days per year just 1500 years ago than it has experienced in the last 32 years. It could well have been more ice free in the 30s than it is now. Ice conditions in that region are constantly changing and the Arctic becoming ice free would not be out of the ordinary. However it does not appear that is happening and we can not say with any confidence what the conditions in that region will be. As for the methane issue, that also is part of the natural cycle. Methane being released into the atmosphere continuously and being converted to CO2 soon there after is an ongoing thing. Part of the natural cycles.
Sorry to say but this does not contradict any of my favorite opinions! You are still repeating claims by the Chicken Little Brigade and the “Sky is NOT Falling”!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uoy9fcfMWU
“The Arctic has had more ice free days per year just 1500 years ago than it has experienced in the last 32 years. It could well have been more ice free in the 30s than it is now.”
Source, please. If someone has found a way to measure ice-free days 1500 years ago, I’d like to see his method.
“Ice conditions in that region are constantly changing and the Arctic becoming ice free would not be out of the ordinary.”
Actually it would. Off the north coast of Alaska, regions now consistently ice-free in summer have been found not to have been ice-free for the past 80,000 years. The method employed was to examine sea-bottom cores for faunal evidence (shells). It seems that the sea life under the ice is not the same as the sea life in waters the sun shines down on. So you determine which kinds of shells have been raining down on the sea floor.
Pretty good method, I’m thinking.
What in this evidence is not consistent with the opposite conclusion
I can’t take it anymore, I am going to wake up and this will all be over
Michael:
Maybe you forgot to read about the history of the Arctic region as told by our own NSIDC, that claims the Arctic was more ice free 1500 years ago as seen is sea bottom coring. Biological activity around the Arctic coast also showed less ice in that region as little as 800 years ago.
michael says:
June 26, 2013 at 1:34 pm
I’ve never seen a crowd in my entire life more resistant to considering– or even reading– anyone else’s opinion.
====
what about the ones that have read it….and know it’s BS
So you’re saying that you’ve now read that article in the Independent. And that you know it’s BS.
Please take me through your thinking on this. Are you saying that there has been no warm, wet spot along the NE Siberian coast in recent years, and that no methane clathrates are leaking from the sea bed? That they just made the whole thing up?
What’s the lie? Or did you even read the article?
“The reason for the expedition was the supposition that ice-like methane hydrates stored in the sea bed were dissolving due to rising water temperatures. “Methane hydrate is only stable at very low temperatures and under very high pressure. The gas outlets off Spitsbergen lie approximately at a depth which marks the border between stability and dissolution. Therefore we presumed that a measurable rise in water temperature in the Arctic could dissolve the hydrates from the top downwards” explained Professor Berndt. Methane could then be released into the water or even into the atmosphere, where it would act as a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.
In fact, what the researchers found in the area offers a much more differentiated picture. Above all the fear that the gas emanation is a consequence of the current rising sea temperature does not seem to apply. At least some of the gas outlets have been active for longer. Carbonate deposits, which form when microorganisms convert the escaping methane, were found on the vents. “At numerous emergences we found deposits that might already be hundreds of years old. This estimation is indeed only based on the size of the samples and empirical values as to how fast such deposits grow. On any account, the methane sources must be older” says Professor Berndt. The exact age of the carbonates will be determined from samples in GEOMAR’s laboratories.
“Details will only be known in a few months when the data has been analysed; however the observed gas emanations are probably not caused by human influence” says Berndt. There are two other possible explanations instead: Either they are symptoms of a long term temperature rise or they show a seasonal process where gas hydrates continuously melt and reform.
Another interesting observation made on the expedition, was that a very active microbial community that consumes the methane has established itself on the sea bed. “We were able to detect high concentrations of hydrogen sulphide, which is an indication of methane consuming microbes in the sea bed, and, with the help of JAGO, discovered typical biocoenoses that we recognised from other, older methane outlets” explained microbiologist Professor Dr. Tina Treude from GEOMAR, who also took part in the expedition. “Methane consuming microbes grow only slowly in the sea bed, thus their high activity indicates that the methane has not just recently begun effervescing.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/25/remember-the-panic-over-methane-seeping-out-of-the-arctic-seabed-in-2009-never-mind/
Stop hyperventilating Chicken Little. 😆
Gator:
You are giving away all the answers! 😉
Very scholarly, Gate. I’m impressed.
I’m not surprised your Dr Berndt found the actual event to depart somewhat from the theoretical prediction. He wouldn’t be the first to ever find such a thing in nature.
But the main point is, warming sea temps, which are demonstrable in that region, would be closely linked to the melting of any frozen methane deposits to be found in the vicinity. And that’s exactly what they’ve found. As announced by the American Geophysical Union.
http://www.eesi.org/new-methane-plumes-rising-arctic-ocean-discovered-07-dec-2011
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JC007189/abstract
http://digitaljournal.com/article/316125
Etcetera. Also, I do note his observation about carbon deposits, that there are some of them “that might already be hundreds of years old.” This would be very possible. You have massive deposits there, and over the years a little may very well be released in any locally warm year. You might even find evidence of a release millions of years old.
But that’s very different from what’s going on now. We have a massive, increasing and worrying release.
“The release of methane from the Arctic is in itself a contributor to global warming as a result of polar amplification. Recent observations in the Siberian arctic show increased rates of methane release from the Arctic seabed.[4] Land-based permafrost, also in the Siberian arctic, was also recently observed to be releasing large amounts of methane, estimated at over 4 million tons – significantly above previous estimates.[11]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release
From this paper:
^ Walter, Km; Zimov, Sa; Chanton, Jp; Verbyla, D; Chapin, Fs, 3Rd (Sep 2006). “Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming”. Nature 443 (7107): 71–5. Bibcode:2006Natur.443…71W. doi:10.1038/nature05040. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 16957728.
Another warmist fool has his ass handed to him over his own link. Bravo gator!
I’m still waiting for the estimation of how much easier it is to navigate with modern technology and much better and faster ships (even if not ice hardened), and the implications for whether arctic ice now can be conclusively shown to be less than throughout the past 200 years or more.
Since I’ve tried to keep my comments focused on the usefulness of quoting newspaper articles, I have to say that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. An article about methane release in a newspaper is much less effective than a peer reviewed paper about methane release.
Also, you’re unlikely to change people’s minds by insulting them first.
Maslowski predicted an ice-free summer in 2013. Polar science is top notch.
“Details will only be known in a few months when the data has been analysed; however the observed gas emanations are probably not caused by human influence” says Berndt.
Straight from the horse’s mouth. Deny much?
Michael,
If you like general science articles check out:http://www.science20.com/ — they will sometimes get into climate change and provide satellite pictures and analysis of the Arctic. If you want a regularly updated, thorough discription and disection of the Arctic, check out: robertscribbler.wordpress.com
A couple of more sites that feed the Chickens!
miked,
http://www.science20.com/ is definitely not a ‘warmist” site. Check out some of the articles right now and you will see.
TOO:
Yep they are feeding the Chickens with this:
Less Focus On Power Plants: 21 Percent Of Homes Account For 50 Percent Of CO2 Emissions
TOO:
I will add this as Chicken feed also
Is Co2 changing the rate of cooling, thereby altering the expected surface temperature, are the hypothesized positive feedbacks actually there, are there any actual measurements of these parameters. I think there is. Every night the Sun sets on every location on Earth, and the surface starts to cool by radiating heat into the cold black of space. What can weather station data tell us about this?
Here is another related site you two may enjoy, it is every bit as scientific as http://www.science20.com.
http://www.syfy.com/ghosthunters/
You kids have fun now! 😉
Gator:
That is serious stuff! 😉
Consistently erroneous models and predictions are not to be questioned, yet observations from the past documented in 1000’s of articles are meaningless untrustworthy anecdote?
let’s compromise: we (who question authority and motive, not fact) will consider these articles to be written by untrustworthy incompetents, if you (the “97%”) will consider your disproven models likewise.
“michael on June 26, 2013 at 9:34 pm
Very scholarly, Gate. I’m impressed.”
No, you’re not, but if you had at least half a brain you would be.
Dipshit, I have explained there is noting unusual or unprecedented about our climate. I also just showed you the latest peer reviewed science that states there is no danger from clathrates. And what do you do as a knee jerk reaction? You run to the old disproven alarmist literature like a pig to slop! 😆
Dipshit, how many years of geology and climatology classes have you taken?
I graduated thirty years ago, after spending about eight years in the Earth Sciences department, and have no need for wet behind the ears babes such as yourself yammering on bout Santa Claus and other such fairy tales.
Once again, either disprove NV or STFU. 😆
And you wonder why we point and laugh as we call your name, Chicken Little. 😆